• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
Hey varwoche, not that I'm not impressed by your use of colours and tables, but I suggest your time would be better spent by putting sources to the little items you collect, not least to make sure they aren't only true in your mind. I'm sure it would also help to convince others that you're not just engaging in free-flying conspiracy theorizing.
Click to expand...

all those items are verified (past tense) fact.

Sorry your little game is drawing to a close.
 
varwoche said:
2016 partial timeline, draft:

March 19| Podesta email hacked
April 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform
Click to expand...

You missed a couple:
June 7 Trump announces that he will give a speech on June 13 "discussing all the things that have taken place with the Clintons"
June 13 Trump does not give the announced speech
 
Last edited:
Charles Krauthammer drops his load:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...competence-is-not-a-good-defense-for-trump-jr


"They were saying for six months, we didn't do it, there's no evidence that we did it ... Now they're saying, yeah we did it, but it wasn't so bad and we were incompetent at it. That's not a very good defense," Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, said on the network...."
Click to expand...


"I defended them, because up until today there was no 'there' there," he said.

"Well now there is a 'there.'"
Click to expand...
 
Elagabalus said:
Charles Krauthammer
Click to expand...


Isn't that one of the neo-con clique who conned you into starting the war on Iraq that devastated the whole region, killed millions of people, caused the refugee crisis and turned a couple of freaks in Afghanistan into a huge army of terrorists in more than a decade of bogus "war on terror"?

Why would anybody care what a crackpot like him thinks about anything? :confused:
 
varwoche said:
If there's anything in particular you take issue with, let me know and I'll provide evidence.
Click to expand...


How about "Russian operative". The woman was interviewed and says she does not work for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says the same. Perhaps they are lying but there is no evidence I am aware of to counter this.
 
mgidm86 said:
How about "Russian operative". The woman was interviewed and says she does not work for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says the same. Perhaps they are lying but there is no evidence I am aware of to counter this.
Click to expand...

You really are trying too hard.

I ask again, what was her motive if not part of Putin's attempt to address the Magnitsky Act?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Isn't that one of the neo-con clique who conned you into starting the war on Iraq that devastated the whole region, killed millions of people, caused the refugee crisis and turned a couple of freaks in Afghanistan into a huge army of terrorists in more than a decade of bogus "war on terror"?

Why would anybody care what a crackpot like him thinks about anything? :confused:
Click to expand...

He is an inveterate republican line tower. The fact he broke is significant, not that he is trustworthy.
 
mgidm86 said:
How about "Russian operative". The woman was interviewed and says she does not work for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says the same. Perhaps they are lying but there is no evidence I am aware of to counter this.
Click to expand...


Sounds legit! Since when did conservatives start taking the word of (ex) commie pinko Putinellas?
 
mgidm86 said:
How about "Russian operative". The woman was interviewed and says she does not work for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says the same. Perhaps they are lying but there is no evidence I am aware of to counter this.
Click to expand...

From the guardian

The Russian criminal defence lawyer has had clients with links to Russian government officials, however. Her highest profile case was the defence of Denis Katsyv, a Russian businessman accused of laundering a portion of the proceeds from a $230m tax fraud uncovered by the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who later died in jail.

The US imposed sanctions on officials considered complicit in Magnitsky’s death, which caused so much anger in Moscow that the Kremlin banned US adoptions of Russian children in response.
Click to expand...

We can't treat Russian business and elite interest as not linked to Moscow. This is like when they met with that bank CEO....who was an ex KGB agent. How many bank CEOs are ex CIA?
 
mgidm86 said:
How about "Russian operative". The woman was interviewed and says she does not work for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says the same. Perhaps they are lying but there is no evidence I am aware of to counter this.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the woman says or the Kremlin says. What we have is Donnie Jr, the Prince of the Alt-dot-Ukraine, and the Secretary-to-be-of-Everything gleefully meeting with someone they were given reason to believe was....

... going to give them dirt on Hillary, obtained by Russian security and with the tacit approval of the Russian government, at very high levels, who were working to get Donald J. Trump elected.

"Oh, well, we don't know what her actual status was...." is not even remotely germane to the case. We have mens rea - they intended to do wrong.

And the belief in "the word" of the present Kremlin and this lawyer, both claiming that she had no official links to the government, is preciously naive. Think an old KGB hand like Vladi would send a bona fide "agent" or "spokesperson". No, friends of friends... the well-respected "back door" approach... is the way to go.
 
Just watched the Hannity interview of Trump Junior. He did not do well - his attitude didn't work for me at all, nor did anything he said. He's probably a cops dream suspect in that he's full of himself and can't shut up.
 
mgidm86 said:
Just watched the Hannity interview of Trump Junior. He did not do well - his attitude didn't work for me at all, nor did anything he said. He's probably a cops dream suspect in that he's full of himself and can't shut up.
Click to expand...
Post showed some promise.

mgidm86 said:
I interpret that as "No, I have no evidence that she works for the Russians, therefore I will assume that she does"
Click to expand...
And then you ignored the evidence and went with the cherry-picked thing.

She represents the same people involved with Putin's oligarchy. Maybe you need a broader picture of Putin's kleptocracy.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It doesn't matter what the woman says or the Kremlin says. What we have is Donnie Jr, the Prince of the Alt-dot-Ukraine, and the Secretary-to-be-of-Everything gleefully meeting with someone they were given reason to believe was....

... going to give them dirt on Hillary, obtained by Russian security and with the tacit approval of the Russian government, at very high levels, who were working to get Donald J. Trump elected.

"Oh, well, we don't know what her actual status was...." is not even remotely germane to the case. We have mens rea - they intended to do wrong.

And the belief in "the word" of the present Kremlin and this lawyer, both claiming that she had no official links to the government, is preciously naive. Think an old KGB hand like Vladi would send a bona fide "agent" or "spokesperson". No, friends of friends... the well-respected "back door" approach... is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not she has ties to Putin does matter. One line of thinking is that this was basically a trial run - tell her to offer juicy info on Clinton, but don't tell her what it is, and see how Trump's team responds.

And if so, the answer was a spectacular success for Russia - but not good at all for the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom